Study manual

Thorogood v. Bryan do not appear to me to bring the case within 
that principle.... 
It appears to me that the "Identification" upon which the 
decision in Thorogood v. Bryan is based has no foundation in 

---

263 
fact. I am of opinion that there is no relation constituted 
between the driver of an omnibus and its ordinary passengers 
which can justify the inference that they are identified to any 
extent whatever with his negligence. He is the servant of the 
owner, not their servant; he does not look to them for orders, 
and they have no right to interfere with his conduct of the 
vehicle except perhaps the right of remonstrance when he is 
doing, (or threatens to do), something that is wrong and 
inconsistent with their safety. Practically they have no 
greater measure of control over his actions than the passenger 
in a railway train has over the conduct of the engine-driver. I 
am therefore unable to assent to the principle upon which the 
case of Thorogood v. Bryan rests. In my opinion an ordinary 
passenger by an omnibus, or by a ship, is not affected, either 
in a question with contributory wrongdoers or in one with 
innocent third parties, by the negligence of the driver or of 
the master and crew, unless he actually assumes control over 
their actions and thereby occasions mischief. In that case he 
must of course be responsible for the consequences of his 
interference.... 
Appeal dismissed. 
[EDITOR'S NOTE. This decision confirms the emphatic opinion 
which Lopes, L.J., had expressed in the court below, that "The 
theory of the Identification of the passengers with the driver 
is a fallacy and a fiction, contrary to sound law and opposed to 
every principle of justice"; (L.R. 12 P.D. at p. 99).] 

---